Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2005, 06:19 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Sound logic on gas prices

I know this is an emotional subject with many of us. However, one of my fav. economists prepared this article to shed some light on the subject.

Anyone in Hawaii should send this to their lawmakers.

Enjoy!


A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
GASOLINE PRICES

Click here to Print |

Nationally, the average per gallon price for regular gasoline is $2.50.

Are gasoline prices high? That's not the best way to ask that question. It's akin to asking, "Is Williams tall?" The average height of U.S. women is 5'4", and for men, it's 5'10". Being 6'4", I'd be tall relative to the general U.S. population. But put me on a basketball court, next to the average NBA basketball player, and I wouldn't be tall; I'd be short. So when we ask whether a price is high or low, we have to ask relative to what.

In 1950, a gallon of regular gasoline sold for about 30 cents; today, it's $2.50. Are today's gasoline prices high compared to 1950? Before answering that question, we have to take into account inflation that has occurred since 1950. Using my trusty inflation calculator (www.westegg.com/inflation), what cost 30 cents in 1950 costs $2.33 in 2005. In real terms, that means gasoline prices today are only slightly higher, about 8 percent, than they were in 1950. Up until the recent spike, gasoline prices have been considerably lower than 1950 prices.

Some Americans are demanding that the government do something about gasoline prices. Let's think back to 1979 when the government did do something. The Carter administration instituted price controls. What did we see? We saw long gasoline lines, and that's if the gas station hadn't run out of gas. It's estimated that Americans used about 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their cars while waiting in line. In an effort to deal with long lines, the Carter administration introduced the harebrained scheme of odd and even days, whereby a motorist whose license tag started with an odd number could fill up on odd-numbered days, and those with an even number on even-numbered days.

With the recent spike in gas prices, the government has chosen not to pursue stupid policies of the past. As a result, we haven't seen shortages. We haven't seen long lines. We haven't seen gasoline station fights and riots. Why? Because price has been allowed to perform its valuable function -- that of equating demand with supply.

Our true supply problem is of our own doing. Large quantities of oil lie below the 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amount of land proposed for oil drilling is less than 2,000 acres, less than one-half of one percent of ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. But environmentalists' hold on Congress has prevented us from drilling for it. They've also had success in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the shore of California. Another part of our energy problem has to do with refining capacity. Again, because of environmentalists' successful efforts, it's been 30 years since we've built a new oil refinery.

Few people realize that the U.S. is also a major oil-producing country. After Saudi Arabia, producing 10.4 million barrels a day, then Russia with 9.4 million barrels, the U.S. with 8.7 million barrels a day is the third-largest producer of oil. But we could produce more. Why aren't we? Producers have a variety of techniques to win monopoly power and higher profits that come with that power. What's a way for OPEC to gain more power? I have a hypothesis, for which I have no evidence, but it ought to be tested. If I were an OPEC big cheese, I'd easily conclude that I could restrict output and charge higher oil prices if somehow U.S. oil drilling were restricted. I'd see U.S. environmental groups as allies, and I would make "charitable" contributions to assist their efforts to reduce U.S. output. Again, I have no evidence, but it's a hypothesis worth examination.

Return to Articles Page
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 07:25 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 54
fuel costs

Well said!
__________________
http://www.pcars.us/albums/4802.jpgTOM986
TOM986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 02:50 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
I'd have to research this in more detail, but the problem with using 1950 as the base is that the US was still feeling the effects of post World War II inflation. Plus, I'm not sure whether the Korean War was on at that point. These may have contributed to higher than usual gasoline prices at the time. As a kid in the mid- to late 1950s, I distinctly remember premium gas widely available in the northeast for under 30 cents a gallon. In fact, I remember my father filling his 1958 Buick for under 30 cents a gallon. I'm not sure it crossed 30 cents until the early '60s and, as I recall, the rate of increase was pretty mild until the '70s gas shortages. Using this guy's "trusty inflation calculator" and moving the year to 1958 and premium gas to 30 cents, the current price should be $1.97 -- for premium. Instead, it's currently headed for $4.

This guy sounds like an apologist for a government that's done little or nothing about gas prices while oil companies are awash in profits. And, typical for these guys, he twists the statistics to fit his thesis.
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 02:57 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
Sorry to beat on this one, but I was right, guys. Take a look at this chart: http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm and you'll see that there was virtually no gas price inflation until the early to mid-'60s. This is another bogus argument by a conservative columnist. These guys give the respectable conservatives a bad name. Next thing you know, Williams will be writing that we found WMDs in Iraq!
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 03:54 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 435
Random thoughts:

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.

As the world grows, adding more people, more homes, and more cars - unless supply rises with the growth, then prices will go up. Simple math.

Our home and business development models are built on suburban sprawl. This takes a lot of petroleum to function. There is no short term way to alter the fact that we all have to drive a lot. If the parameters change (gas goes up) to the point of discomfort, we will change our patterns long term. On an individual level you can beat the system now: live near work, drive an efficient car, insulate your attic.

Last thought: If we built nuclear plants in the 1950's and 60's that are still on line, surely we could build better, safer plants today. South Carolina has a couple of nuclear plants in a relatively small state - electric prices are 12% below national average and there is a good energy supply to attract new industry.

Theory aside, $3 gas bites. (Near term reaction).
limoncello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 05:13 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
Now that's some sound logic on gas prices! Limoncello, I hope you're finding an adequate supply. I heard things were running short in SC.
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 05:34 AM   #7
Registered User
 
tqtran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by limoncello
Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.
(Near term reaction).
limoncello - Good point but sorry to say that you can not use your data. Anything $$$ wise pre June 5, 1933 is irrelevant.

longislander1 's data starting @1950 is good.
tqtran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:44 AM   #8
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
All good points.

Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by limoncello
Random thoughts:

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.

As the world grows, adding more people, more homes, and more cars - unless supply rises with the growth, then prices will go up. Simple math.

Our home and business development models are built on suburban sprawl. This takes a lot of petroleum to function. There is no short term way to alter the fact that we all have to drive a lot. If the parameters change (gas goes up) to the point of discomfort, we will change our patterns long term. On an individual level you can beat the system now: live near work, drive an efficient car, insulate your attic.

Last thought: If we built nuclear plants in the 1950's and 60's that are still on line, surely we could build better, safer plants today. South Carolina has a couple of nuclear plants in a relatively small state - electric prices are 12% below national average and there is a good energy supply to attract new industry.

Theory aside, $3 gas bites. (Near term reaction).
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page